SOCIOLOGICAL APPROACH The world probably cannot be saved, but an individual can always be saved. Joseph Brodsky Representatives of the sociological approach, following its founder, the French sociologist Emile Durkheim, consider suicide as a way to resolve

PSYCHOLOGICAL APPROACH A person must drink the bitterness of life to the bottom in order to learn to enjoy it. Daily Capital The psychological approach to suicide is one of the most common in the West. S. Freud (2001, p. 263) was convinced that “no neurotic

INTEGRATIVE APPROACH Treatment of complexes can only be comprehensive. Wojciech Wierciech Systematic research into suicide in our country has been conducted since 1970 by the Department of Suicidology of the Moscow Research Institute of Psychiatry of the Ministry of Health of the Russian Federation, on the basis of which the Federal

Single-component approach The first option is that the general factor is caused by the work of one single mechanism, process, or “block” of the cognitive system involved in solving all mental problems. The degree of development of this mechanism and

Multicomponent approach The idea of ​​the multicomponent approach is that the general factor of general intelligence is the resultant work of a certain number of different cognitive processes, or components, which are involved in different combinations and proportions in

1. Ontosynergetic approach Basic strategies and approaches in the development of art therapy Art therapy is represented by a wide range of areas that still do not have a single methodological justification. Turning to art as a psychological subject

Approach Two people in the same situation always see it differently. This is what people with life experience tend to say, and they are right. There are indeed minor differences in perceptual understanding between us. On the other hand, however, when speaking

Unlike the other approaches we have discussed, the phenomenological approach focuses almost entirely on subjective experience. Here the phenomenology of the individual is studied - how a person personally experiences events. This approach arose partly as a reaction to other schools of thought that were considered too mechanistic by proponents of phenomenology. Thus, the phenomenologist tends to disagree with the idea that behavior is governed by external stimuli (behaviorism), sequential processing of information in the processes of perception and memory (cognitive psychology), or unconscious impulses (psychoanalytic theories). In addition, phenomenologists set themselves different tasks compared to psychologists of other directions: they are more interested in describing the inner life and experiences of a person than in developing theories and predicting behavior.

Some of the phenomenological theories are called humanistic because they emphasize the qualities that distinguish humans from animals. For example, according to humanistic theories, the main motivating force of an individual is the tendency towards development and self-actualization. All people have a basic need to develop to their fullest potential, to go beyond where they are now. Although we may be hindered by environmental and social circumstances, our natural tendency is to actualize our potential. For example, a woman who is in a traditional marriage and has been raising her children for ten years may suddenly feel a strong desire to make a career in some non-family field, say, to begin to develop her long-dormant scientific interest, the actualization of which she feels the need.

Phenomenological, or humanistic, psychology focuses more on literature and the humanities than on science. For this reason, it is difficult for us to describe in detail what proponents of this school of thought would say about the issues we have raised, such as facial recognition or childhood amnesia; These are simply not the kinds of problems that phenomenologists study. In fact, some humanists reject scientific psychology entirely, claiming that its methods add nothing to the understanding of human nature. This position is incompatible with our understanding of psychology and seems too extreme. The value of the humanistic view is to remind psychologists to turn more frequently to problems that are essential to human well-being, and not just to the study of those isolated fragments of behavior that, as isolated cases, lend themselves more easily to scientific analysis. However, it is neither correct nor acceptable to believe that problems of mind and behavior can be solved by discarding everything that has been learned through scientific research methods.

Over the past 20-30 years in psychology, in the wake of criticism of the “natural scientific mind,” qualitative research has become increasingly popular, presented by its supporters as a reform movement and an alternative to traditional positivist research.

Usually quality research is determined by contrasting them quantitative research. Moreover, the qualitative/quantitative dichotomy can have both methodological (in accordance with the methods used in research) and methodological meaning. In the latter case, qualitative and quantitative research are understood as distinctive research traditions, “worldviews” or even “cultures” that are based on different assumptions about the nature of the object of study, the relationship between the researcher and the researched and the nature of the study, and it is the specificity of these assumptions that determines that in qualitative research preference is given to qualitative, and in quantitative research preference is given to quantitative methods, although variants of their various combinations are also possible.

In contrast to quantitative research focused on natural science knowledge and the idea of ​​a “unified science,” qualitative research is generally based on the philosophical tradition of justifying the specifics of the humanities. If the positivist quantitative methodology accepts the position of empirical realism, i.e., it allows for the possibility immediate relationship between the world and cognition, then qualitative research interpretive(if we understand interpretation in a broad sense, which will be discussed below), in other words, they deny the possibility of comprehending objects, events and actions outside the practices of representation. We can say that this point is accepted by all qualitative approaches: in our opinion, even the most fundamentalist classical phenomenological study, which in a number of issues opposes the interpretative hermeneutic and discursive (socio-constructionist) approaches, today cannot be thought of without reflection on the linguistic mediation of experience and its description.

Traditional criteria for assessing empirical work adopted in quantitative research - validity, reliability, representativeness - turn out to be not entirely suitable for assessing the “quality” of qualitative research; at least they need to be rethought. As an interpretive enterprise, qualitative research does not purport to bridge the gap between objects and their representations—instead, qualitative research methodology works “with” and “within” that gap. However, the forms of such work, as well as the methods of monitoring its quality, differ significantly depending on the conceptual approach on which the research is oriented, which we will try to show further using the example of phenomenological and hermeneutic approaches.

Qualitative research is a broadly humanistic and critical research practice whose proponents cultivate a distinctive it with. If quantitative research is based on the ideas of control over objective processes, repeatability and prediction, that is, on the ethos of manipulation and instrumentality, then for qualitative research the very practice of understanding, based on the ideas of reciprocity, dialogue and co-authorship, is important. In addition, the history of the development of qualitative research in psychology is associated with an emancipatory interest: qualitative research is often aimed at supporting social change.

Finally, qualitative research is distinguished by the originality of the research process itself. Compared to quantitative (usually hypothetico-deductive) research, qualitative research is characterized by a much more open nature and inductive logic of research, which is expressed in the specific definition of working concepts, the nature and strategies of sampling (usually target, but not random(see, for example, ), formulating hypotheses (in qualitative research they often have the character of only a very general focus of the research search or are not formulated at all), etc. In qualitative research there is no such clear delineation of the stages of research as is customary in quantitative research; on the contrary, they are characterized by the “connectedness” of the research stages with each other and the cyclical nature of the analysis, when the researcher simultaneously collects data and analyzes them in order to return to the data, etc., until the so-called saturation point- relative completeness and exhaustiveness of inductively derived descriptions and theories.

Having given a general description of qualitative research as a kind of “unity in diversity,” we thereby joined the tradition, which is very characteristic of the methodology of qualitative research, to consider this type of research practice in a general way - from the point of view of some “family resemblance,” i.e., the common features that contains various qualitative approaches. In general, a generalized view of qualitative research is important because it makes it possible to most clearly define a methodological perspective that is alternative to the positivism traditional in empirical psychology. In addition, a generalized view of qualitative research as a whole allows us to emphasize the flexibility of the technical procedures used in them (for example, methods of analysis and interpretation of the obtained textual data), thereby helping to overcome the methodological reductionism that is quite firmly rooted in psychology (thanks to the same positivism). (position “method for the sake of method”) and focusing the researcher’s attention on the need to subordinate the method to the research question.

At the same time, a generalized view of qualitative research sometimes becomes the cause of “methodological vagueness,” for which their supporters are often criticized. It can hardly be denied that the quality of any research largely depends on how systematically and consistently the chosen methodological approach is implemented. Qualitative research can be carried out using very different conceptual approaches to understanding what research should be. One of the most significant differences between the approaches is determined by the attitude towards interpretation. We allowed ourselves to focus on interpretive nature of qualitative research, however, this statement requires serious clarification, since there are such approaches in qualitative research (primarily we are talking about phenomenological approach), which are positioned by their supporters as descriptive and thereby contrasted with approaches based on interpretation itself. In this article we intend to give a comparison phenomenological approach with interpretive approaches (mainly hermeneutic approach or, in other words, approach hermeneutic phenomenology). We intend to show that with the above-mentioned “family” resemblance, these approaches nevertheless have different philosophical foundations from each other, answer the question somewhat differently about the nature of the object being studied and the forms of its cognition, which ultimately determine , differences in the analysis techniques used within these approaches and methods of monitoring the quality of the study. In our opinion, it really makes sense to separate the description and the actual interpretation, however, this division is only procedural and methodological in nature. It is necessary to distinguish between interpretation in a narrow sense (as a specific method, different from the method of description) and interpretation in a broad sense (as a general philosophical and methodological principle of knowledge).

It should be noted that, reflecting on the division of approaches within qualitative research methodology, we do not at all agree with the position of methodological reductionism. One can agree with authors such as I. Holloway and L. Todres that a position is needed that pays sufficient attention to both the methodological flexibility inherent in qualitative research and the consistency and coherence of the methodological approach, in which methodological procedures are coherent with the philosophical foundations of the approach. Therefore, having described the differences in the research styles of the phenomenological and hermeneutic approaches, we will also try to show those moments in research procedures that can be flexibly combined with each other, for example, as different modes of understanding (as, incidentally, we will also show those features of the approaches which, in our opinion, cannot be combined).

Phenomenological approach. The phenomenological approach in qualitative research is based on the philosophical ideas of E. Husserl. Let us recall that Husserl proposed a method of reliable knowledge of the mental in its own coordinates - the science of the “purely mental as such.” Actually, this interest in the “purely mental”, together with the methodological guidelines for its reliable knowledge, became the starting point for thinking through Husserl’s ideas in the plane of developing a phenomenological approach as a qualitative research methodology for strategy. In the field of qualitative research, phenomenology has come to be understood as “the study of the structure (and its variations) of consciousness to which any thing, event or person appears” (A. Giorgi, cited in:). Phenomenology concentrates on describing lived experience, describing such phenomena as the experience of “learning to play chess”, the experience of “becoming a mother”, the feeling of being “understood”, etc. Note that for supporters of the phenomenological approach it is very important to identify essential structure experience or experience, that is, to articulate those invariant themes that appear in experience from situation to situation and from one person to another.

To study the psyche in its own essence, Husserl proposed phenomenological method- a unique type of experience, the core of which is the so-called phenomenological reduction, that is, attempts to “bracket out” (another metaphor used is “bracket”) everything that the natural attitude carries with it - any ordinary and scientific knowledge about the phenomenon - in order to successfully come into contact with the entities. A researcher practicing phenomenological reduction temporarily abandons any judgments about experience (Husserl used the Greek word epoche, meaning abstention from presupposed opinions), “brackets” his preliminary ideas about phenomena in order to achieve a clear vision of them.

When proponents of the phenomenological approach insist on descriptive nature of their research, they mean that the phenomenological researcher works only at the level obvious meanings, at the level self-understanding researched and reads from the text only what is said directly. As we see, the descriptive nature of phenomenological research directly follows from the epistemological concepts of phenomenology about the possibility and necessity of achieving a state of relatively “pure” consciousness, not clouded by a set of judgments presupposed by experience. Procedurally, this is achieved not only through the reflexive actions of the researcher, but also through the use of special methods of data analysis.

The technique most often used in phenomenological research is sequential condensation sense (for a description of a variant of this technique, see, for example, in:), for the implementation of which experts are often involved. In the description of the condensed meaning, the researcher includes only those opinions of experts who have received intersubjective agreement. The description itself, for the purpose of validation, can be offered to respondents who confirm its accuracy or make amendments to it. After condensing the meanings of each significant statement, these meanings are collected into larger thematic clusters, and experts can also be involved here. The collected clusters are again given to individual respondents for validation, etc. Ultimately, we obtain a description of the structure of the experience of interest to us. As can be seen, the phenomenological methodology of data analysis is a movement toward meaning through a structured process that involves constant reliance on data. The purpose of the analysis is an integrated description of the experience, independent of the theoretical, political or any other position of the researcher.

However, it is necessary to make a reservation that today two types of phenomenological research are practiced - classical, or intuitive (classical or intuition) phenomenology and new, or empathic (new or empathetic) phenomenology. So far we have been talking mainly about the first type - classical phenomenology; precisely its goal is to reveal the invariant structure of this or that experience, in other words, to answer the question of what this or that phenomenon is (“the feeling of being understood,” an aesthetic experience, the experience of violence, or anything else). New empathic phenomenology tries to answer another question, namely: how certain people experience a certain experience (understanding, perception of beauty, violence, etc.) If classical phenomenology, turning to subjective experience, tries to find a path to understanding through it, what is this or that phenomenon, what is its essence, then empathic phenomenology openly and reflexively addresses the subjective meanings and meanings that the experiencers themselves put into their experience: what does caring for the dying mean for the hospice nurses themselves? What does living with a heart condition mean for the patients themselves? etc. In a social sense, such studies are of great importance, since they demonstrate the diversity of people’s life worlds and allow us to “capture” the experience of those whose views, for one or another social reason, differ from the views of representatives of the dominant groups in a given area. Empathic phenomenology, as can be seen, comes from the idea of ​​the social heterogeneity of human consciousness and itself contributes to the development of such ideas. Thus, empathic phenomenology is closely related to the critical mode of qualitative research, although it does not use the “revealing” interpretative techniques inherent in critical research itself. Finally, it should be said that in contrast to intuitive phenomenology, based on the philosophical ideas of E. Husserl, empathic phenomenology takes a lot from the hermeneutic tradition, respectively, on a scale whose poles are description, on the one hand, and interpretation, on the other, it will be although and on the pole of description, but will be somewhat shifted towards interpretation.

Interpretive approaches: traditional and “deep” hermeneutics. This direction of qualitative research is based on the ideas of philosophical hermeneutics (W. Dilthey, M. Heidegger, H.G. Gadamer, etc.) Like phenomenology, hermeneutics is interested in revealing meanings. However, “grasping” meanings in hermeneutics has a different nature: understanding meaning here is never a simple reproduction of what is understood in its original originality, but is always accomplished in the process of interpretation.

One of the most important ideas of philosophical hermeneutics is the idea hermeneutic circle as an integral conditions of understanding. In the context of the works of M. Heidegger and H.G. Gadamer's hermeneutic circle must be understood not only in a methodological sense (as a continuous movement of knowledge between the whole and parts of the text), but also in an ontological sense. As M. Heidegger writes, “any interpretation designed to provide intelligibility must already have an interpreted understood.” In other words, understanding the meaning always presupposes the interpreter’s vital relationship to the text, his preliminary connection with what is communicated in the text. This hermeneutic premise is called pre-understanding, since it is not achieved in the process of understanding, but is assumed to be already given in advance. We enter into research with our own pre-opinions and pre-judgments. And the self-destruction of the researcher (in the sense of completely clearing his consciousness of any form of pre-judgment) is not only unattainable, but would also entail the elimination of the very possibility of understanding. Another thing is that in the process of understanding the researcher must always be ready to question his own pre-judgments, taking into account what the other person (or text) is saying.

Based on this philosophical platform, the hermeneutic approach as a qualitative research methodology is explicitly positioned by its proponents as interpretive enterprise: meanings are always born in the process of interaction between the reader and the text, and no matter how close the researcher is to the text that addresses it in its “truth”, the process of understanding will always resemble translation from one language to another, which inevitably includes re-illumination of the meaning , the interpreter’s awareness of his separation from the text and the search for a compromise.

As in the case of phenomenology, proponents of the hermeneutic approach attach great importance to the researcher’s reflection. However, in accordance with the general hermeneutic position, the researcher's pre-judgments are not set aside, but are considered an essential part of the interpretive process, and are therefore “put into play” and “at stake” - so that they can always be changed in the light of the data of experience. The researcher tries, if possible, to explicate his position and track how it relates to the problem being studied. And therefore, the final report in interpretive research, as a rule, includes a description of the personal position of the researcher and the philosophical and theoretical foundations within which the research was conducted.

The methodology for hermeneutic data analysis is much less defined than in the case of phenomenological research. T. Koch, for example, writes that “hermeneutics invites participants into an ongoing conversation, but does not provide a final methodology. Understanding is achieved through the fusion of horizons, which is nothing more than a dialectical movement between the pre-understanding of the research process, the interpretative framework and sources of information." D. Allen also emphasizes that there cannot be a finite set of procedures structuring the interpretative process, since interpretation is born from pre-understanding and dialectical movement between the whole and parts of the text. The interpretive process continues until a tangible meaning of what is being interpreted is achieved that answers the research question, is consistent with the theoretical and value position of the researcher, and is certainly supported by the data. How exactly this interpretation arose is a key question, the answer to which the interpreter must present to the reader so that the latter can evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the interpretation.

Let us emphasize once again that, unlike descriptive phenomenological research that focuses on the apparent meanings of what is said or written, in interpretive In hermeneutic research, the text is placed in a broader context (including theoretical), due to which its meanings are highlighted that are not clearly given in the text. And if phenomenological research tends towards unambiguous description, then the hermeneutic approach assumes much greater freedom of interpretation. However, now we must note that no matter how hard we try, in the case of phenomenological condensation of meaning, to work only at the level of obvious meanings of linguistic expressions, the semantic units we obtain will also be the result of an interpretation that involves “re-illuminating” what was originally said and its translation from one language to another. In general, it is impossible to draw a line between description and interpretation: from a philosophical point of view, any repetition of what has been said is already an interpretation, in which what was said falls into a new context and acquires a different voice with its own intonation nuances (in this sense, it is quite justified to call all qualitative research, including descriptive phenomenological, interpretive, as we did at the beginning of this article). At the same time, despite the philosophical uncertainty of the boundary between the message of what is directly said in the text and the interpretation itself, in practice we are really able to distinguish one from the other: in one case, we isolate structures and relationships in the text that can be seen immediately, so to speak, “with first glance,” in the second case, we seem to distance ourselves from the text and, taking a certain theoretical position (for example, the position proposed by one of the “deep hermeneutics” - psychoanalysis, analytical psychology, existential psychoanalysis), restore the conceptual context of what was said.

This distinction between descriptive and hermeneutic (interpretive) phenomenology can be illustrated by two case studies, carried out in a seemingly very similar methodological manner. One of them, the work of C. A. Winters, is devoted to the characteristics of the life world of patients suffering from chronic heart disease, while the other, the work of G. Schöfer, is a study of women's experience of romantic love. Both studies were based on the interview method followed by thematic analysis of the data obtained. However, in the first - actually phenomenological - study, the author describes the most significant topics (experiences of uncertainty, change and some others) as they are understood by the respondents themselves; she only generalizes the meanings directly conveyed by them. In the second study, the description of themes (central tendencies) and their variations (for example, the theme of ambivalence of love) is accompanied by a fairly detailed definition of the perspective of vision held by the researcher, and a discussion of these themes in a specific theoretical and value-based (in this case feminist) context. As an interpretative structure, G. Schöfer’s text reveals such meanings of the female experience of romantic love that cannot be directly found in the words of the respondents, but with which one can quite agree by taking the position proposed by the author.

The characteristics of interpretative approaches will remain incomplete if we do not touch upon the idea of ​​“ deep hermeneutics"and we will not show its differences from classical hermeneutics. As can be seen from our previous presentation, classical hermeneutics, revealing the conditions of understanding, proceeds from the assumption that something (the text) addresses us in your truth. In hermeneutics, understanding a text means strengthening what it says by focusing on the meanings it contains. Hermeneutics assumes the presence of semantic gaps in the text, which it tries to understand through a reconstructive hypothesis about the meaning of the whole. As already mentioned, hermeneutic interpretation is akin to translation from one language to another, when the translator has to make an effort to express what is said in the text in his own language. The interpreter, like the translator, is involved in the meaning of what is said. The same expressions take on different meanings depending on the context, and the interpreter assembles a coherent symbolic whole from these expressions. Traditional hermeneutics, so to speak, works “horizontally”: it tries to reconstruct the coherence of what is being communicated, without implying access to the “vertical” - the discourse of the unconscious.

However, another tradition of interpretation, initiated by psychoanalysis, has also established itself in psychology. This tradition is based on the idea that there are always semantic gaps in the text that are inaccessible to the traditional hermeneutic reading based on linguistic pre-understanding: the gaps in meaning are caused by the unconscious work of encryption, so that the meaning of what is said is hidden not only from the one who listens, but also from the one who speaks. The nature of the unconscious can be understood in different ways. For example, one might use common sense critical understanding to believe that semantic distortions are caused by unconscious strategies of self-deception, and accordingly read messages in the context of a fairly broad everyday knowledge of human psychology. You can also focus on certain theoretical traditions of psychology - psychoanalysis, existential psychology, cognitive theories, etc. - and interpret semantic gaps in the light of certain theoretical ideas about the nature and content of the unconscious. But in any case, we will believe that there is something in the message that is “hidden”, hidden behind the usual symbolic meanings, at the same time revealed in them. To discern this “something” and, taking it into account, to reconstruct the symbolic meaning of what is being communicated is the task of the interpreter. In a philosophical sense, such an appeal to the “vertical”, which involves taking into account the unconscious and comprehending what comes from what is hidden, is often referred to as “deep hermeneutics”. We can say that it is the idea of ​​the “deep-hermeneutic” method that is one of the most important philosophical foundations of psychological interpretations (cf. reflections on psychoanalysis as “deep hermeneutics”).

Phenomenological and interpretative modes of understanding. In one of his works, S. Kvale talks about two modes of understanding - phenomenological And hermeneutical- not in the sense of integrity methodological approaches, as we have done so far, but in the sense of local researcher's attitudes, which the latter can combine within one study. Phenomenological The mode of understanding is that the researcher tries to “grasp” meanings at the level of self-understanding of the person being studied. IN hermeneutical mode, the researcher does not dwell on how the respondent himself understands the meaning of his statement, but assumes that the statement always says something more than the speaker implies. In the hermeneutic mode of understanding, a statement is enriched with meanings introduced into it by the interpreter.

In general, accepting Kvale’s idea about two different modes of understanding as local settings of the researcher, we would suggest talking about phenomenological And interpretive modes, the latter, in turn, is divided into hermeneutic And deep-hermeneutic options. In his ideas about the research interview, Kvale mainly follows the phenomenological research tradition (although he also distinguishes such a type of reading as symptomatic interpretation, close to the ideas of deep hermeneutics). Kvale’s work with content, as a rule, does not imply a “vertical” of the unconscious: the text, as is customary in empathic and hermeneutic phenomenology, addresses us in your truth, which the interpreter is called to hear through the phenomenological and hermeneutic modes of understanding (we are now deliberately avoiding the socio-constructionist views of S. Kvale, since their disclosure is not relevant for clarifying the topic highlighted in the title of this part of the article). Our proposal to talk about interpretive mode of understanding in return hermeneutic is associated with an attempt to take into account the deep-hermeneutic tradition based on the idea of ​​the unconscious, which, while also interpretative, nevertheless differs significantly from traditional hermeneutics.

In our opinion, distinguishing two modes of understanding is relevant specifically for interpretive research. In a number of studies of this kind, it is appropriate to begin the analysis with techniques traditionally used in the phenomenological approach (condensation of meaning and identification of themes): at the first stage of data analysis, the researcher presents a concise statement of the most obvious meanings, focusing on the speaker’s self-understanding, and only then proceeds to a conceptual interpretation of the text . One might think that this type of analysis would promote greater empirical validity of interpretations and control the arbitrariness of interpretative constructs.

An interpretive analysis scheme might be something like this:

semantic units → condensed meaning → Topics → researcher's interpretation(based on research questions and identification of theoretical perspective.

Quality of descriptions and interpretations. Quality control is a critical part of any research. In the methodology of quantitative research, quality criteria and procedures for its control are presented in sufficient detail. However, because qualitative research differs significantly from quantitative research in its philosophical and methodological underpinnings, its proponents believe that the canons of “good science” in qualitative approaches must be rethought in a way that corresponds to the reality of qualitative research and the complexity of the phenomena comprehended through it.

Essentially, we can talk about two perspectives on developing the concept of “quality” in qualitative research. One of them is based on the assumption that external procedures for verifying the propositions put forward by the researcher should be built into the research process. Such procedures may include the technique we described in the section on phenomenological research. checks carried out by respondents themselves- study participants, as well as technicians triangulation(use of various sources and methods of data collection), peer review(evaluation of results by other researchers), partner debriefing(a kind of analysis of the researcher’s pre-installations regarding the study, which is carried out by a colleague removed from the study) and some others. There are certain problems associated with using all such techniques. For example, the agreement or disagreement of respondents with the results of a study does not always reflect the quality of the analysis conducted by the researcher, since the descriptions given by the researcher are at a much higher level of abstraction compared to what the respondents directly talked about, and therefore may be unrecognizable to the latter. In the same way, one can hardly expect unambiguous agreement with the results from colleagues, since their vision is determined by a different system of pre-installations, a different social and personal position. And so on. The described quality control through external verification procedures is in good agreement with the epistemological assumptions of classical phenomenology, and therefore is often used in this type of research.

Another perspective on assessing research quality is more reflective of the interpretative mode of qualitative research. According to proponents of this view, quality control is a process of “negotiation” between researchers and readers, in which the former take responsibility for providing the latter with as much information as possible about the data, the research process, and the researcher’s perspective, so that the readers themselves can evaluate the extent to which the interpretation was carried out qualitatively. From the position of the hermeneutic approach, as we have seen, knowledge is always the result of the interaction of the knower and the known, interpretation has the character of a hermeneutic circle - the perspective and pre-understanding of the researcher initially guide the interpretation of the phenomenon, which is always open to change as the initial pre-understanding changes in the process of interaction with the phenomenon researcher. As S. Fish rightly notes, the interpreter, when reading the text, does not read a certain true meaning of the text, but interprets this meaning based on art questioning. However, the idea that there is no “ready-made” meaning does not mean that we will inevitably come to the cultivation of arbitrariness and subjectivism, since the very ways of creating meaning are limited by those institutions and communities of which the interpreter is a part. As S. Fish writes, “meanings are neither objective nor subjective, at least in the meaning given to these terms by supporters of the traditional system of ideas: they cannot be objective, since they are always the product of one point of view or another... and they are not may be subjective, since the point of view is always social or institutional in nature." If the meaning of a text is indeed a function of the interpretive community, then achieving interpretive agreement within this community and can be the ultimate goal of the interpreter: the researcher conducting interpretive research explicitly explains the research procedure and his position in relation to the data, and if members of the interpretive community, having accepted the researcher’s perspective, can agree with his interpretation, then it acquires the status of “valid” or “true” - at least until the best interpretation, from the point of view of this community, is proposed.

Of course, the described form of research quality control, in which we are not talking about achieving some absolute knowledge, but only about the researcher’s courage to “lay his cards on the table” and give his “creation” to the community, is very positive, since it emphasizes the dialogical nature of continuous production of knowledge in the process of interaction between people and reaching agreement. In our opinion, however, this perspective of assessing the quality of research is also problematic in its own way. Indeed, it is hardly true to think that qualitative data provide such great opportunities for their arbitrary interpretation. Language, although it contains a certain amount of freedom of understanding and interpretation (otherwise the humanities would lose meaning altogether), still outlines fairly strict boundaries of where and how the interpreter can move. In addition, the researcher always has access to semantic contexts within which he understands and describes the data obtained. Intersubjectivity is embedded in the very structures of ordinary language and is associated with the commonality of the life world that we share with each other. At the same time, it remains true that the closer we move towards the interpretive mode of analysis, the less achievable intersubjective-universal statements become. The subtlety of our understanding actually depends on how close the understanding is to the type of personality to which we ourselves belong. There are many discursive contexts (not only theoretical, but social, political, value-based) with which a researcher can relate (sometimes unconsciously) his position. The interpretive community is never homogeneous, so the focus on achieving absolute consensus perhaps looks somewhat utopian. In addition, the community is often very conservative and in every possible way protects itself from novelty...

In our opinion, in order to be able to talk about a valid study, external quality control procedures, as well as orientation towards agreement with the community, are not enough. It is necessary to develop internal self-correction mechanisms built into the research process, the responsibility for which lies entirely with the researcher himself. Some guidance for understanding such mechanisms, in our opinion, is provided by S. Kvale and P. Ricoeur. S. Kvale writes that validate- Means ask questions, theorize and test. P. Ricoeur expresses the idea of ​​the polemical-argumentative nature of interpretation: “Showing that an interpretation is more probable in the light of what we know is not the same as showing that our conclusion is true. In this sense, validation is not verification. Validation is an argumentative discipline comparable to the legal procedures of judicial interpretation." And further: “Validation processes are polemical in nature... All interpretations in the field of literary criticism and social sciences can be challenged and the question “what can break a statement” is common to all argumentative situations.” Let us pay attention to the fact that the “strength test” of interpretative structures that P. Ricoeur speaks of is very close to the position of K. Popper’s critical rationalism.

In conclusion, we note that interpretation, for all its closeness to empirical material, must certainly have a “conceptual taste.” Otherwise, the picture described by the researcher will either remain trivial or risk looking like a random sketch of individual empirical details. However, there is another danger for the interpreter - the problem of hyper-interpretation: often supporters of interpretive types of research tend to give intricate interpretations where interpretations of this level are not required at all. The problem of hyper-interpretation is wittily played out in Umberto Eco’s novel “Foucault’s Pendulum”, the heroes of which build elaborate interpretative structures of “secret signs”, holding in their hands, apparently, an ordinary sales receipt. When constructing this kind of “impressionistic interpretation,” researchers are much more emotionally captured by their own theoretical guidelines than they are by following the empirical material, which they, like the heroes of the aforementioned novel, transform in such a way that it easily fits into the interpretative schemes they have built. As W. Eco says, “figs in a basket” often just means figs in a basket. Complex and intricate intellectual constructions are good when we are dealing with equally complex and intricate material. In other cases, and proponents of phenomenological analysis are largely right here, it is better to stick to the obvious. U. Eco believes that the adequacy of an interpretation is determined by the degree of its programmability by the text. It seems to us that it is necessary to introduce the concept scale interpretation as the correspondence of the level of conceptualizations of the researcher to the nature and content of the factual material.

UDC 37.0.001.76+373.1

FEATURES OF THE PHENOMENOLOGICAL APPROACH IN EDUCATION TODAY

T.N. Korneenko

The article discusses the features of the phenomenological approach to education. The phenomenological approach, which takes into account the existential component of a person, including in cognitive activity, is fundamental in the pedagogical process. Proof of this is that the “human-dimensional concept” serves as the basis for building relationships in society. The distinctive features of logical and phenomenological thinking in the learning process are shown.

Key words: phenomenology, phenomenological approach, education, personality, thinking.

Today the world is faced with problems that are getting worse every year. Increasing environmental problems: melting glaciers, devastation of fertile lands, changes in the average annual temperature of the Earth, more frequent disasters: earthquakes, volcanic eruptions - all this, just a few of them. The expanding information space, in addition to its positive side, also entails a person’s dependence on information, on the fruits of his activity. Finally, the connection between people, between generations is lost, alienation increases, which speaks of the devastation of man. All this indicates a person’s spiritual crisis.

Let us note that crisis phenomena today are also manifested in the methodology of such fundamental sciences as natural sciences. The essence of the crisis phenomena is that the process of scientific knowledge cannot be built in the same way as it was built before - only on the basis of methods of rational induction. Russian philosopher V.S. Stepin highlighted one of the features of “post-non-classical” science, namely the subjective conditionality of the results of scientific knowledge. This means that today the process of cognition bears little resemblance to “an impartial reading of the laws of nature,” since its results are determined by the influence of the knowing subject.

We believe that all of these problems are a consequence of a spiritual crisis, which to some extent permeates the education system. Thus, the pursuit of external forms (computerization of education) with the same content of education, including the same approach to education, slows down or, to put it more sharply, negatively affects the development of the student’s personality.

Cognitive activity is the main activity at school or university. Consequently, changes in the field of education should concern approaches to the process of cognition. Russian scientist G.G. Shpet noted that “...we not only see and embrace, but also understand what is visible and embrace.” To “understand” the visible means to see and comprehend the cognizable as a phenomenon. Thus, in the historical and pedagogical literature one can single out those that emphasize the ambiguity of the process of cognition: the process of cognition is not mechanical reception (A. Disterweg); to learn means to find oneself (P.F. Kapterev); knowledge is not communicated by transfusion from vessel to vessel (S.L. Rubinstein); the subject of cognition not only manifests itself in the act of cognition, but is also created and changed in it (S.L. Rubinshtein, V.P. Zinchenko). All of these provisions predetermine the development of a new approach in the student’s thinking - phenomenological.

Let us highlight what foundations of phenomenology allow us to talk about it as a science towards which the educational process should be oriented. Firstly, this is the incompleteness of existing approaches to the development of thinking or cognitive abilities today. Thus, relying on activity-based, problem-based, or task-based approaches to learning allows only one side of the personality to develop. For example, the problem-solving approach presupposes extreme specificity in the formulation of the problem, which contradicts the principle of the infinity of the knowable. The problem-based approach makes it possible to develop the student’s cognitive activity, but its use is limited both by time frames and by the narrowness of specific questions for students, relating mainly to the subject area. The student’s reflections do not affect the sphere of his existence. G.G. Shpet writes that “. Science since the time of Plato has turned out to be incomplete, in the sense that it has not paid attention to the existence of the knowing subject itself.” Thus, the phenomenological approach in human development becomes decisive, since it is it that allows us to pay attention to the existence of the cognizing subject (and not only pays attention, but takes it as a basis), is based on the methods of intuition, experience, clarification, induction and reduction, which are used in in the case of the development of intellectual thinking, they try not to pay attention, or

convert, but not completely.

Secondly, when relying on a phenomenological approach in education, the student’s life world is more fully developed and involved in education. So, G.G. Shpet notes that “...neither sensory experience, nor reason, nor experience in the shackles of reason, gives us life and completeness... But, through the diversity of sensory data, through the order of intellectual intuition, we make our way to the living soul of all things, grasping it in a kind of intuition...”, which makes it possible to “understand the authentic in its authenticity, the whole in its integrity, the complete in its completeness.” G. Husserl says that by replacing things with models, the mind is deprived of the meaningful dimension of life, or is formalized.

Thirdly, the phenomenological approach assumes that in it a person’s natural disclosure of himself and his subjectivity occurs more fully. G.P. Zvenigorodskaya notes that subjectivity is “the methodological basis for changing the organization of the pedagogical process.” The disclosure of subjectivity occurs, among other things, through appealing in the learning process to those abilities that, in the phenomenological approach, are decisive. So, P.F. Kapterev says that the ability to observe, to correctly express one’s impressions is much more important in human development than even the art of writing or mathematical abilities. K. Jaspers notes that not only the ability to speak languages ​​or mathematical thinking is important for a person, but also the readiness for spiritual comprehension.

Fourthly, domestic psychologists (V.P. Zinchenko, D.A. Leontyev, A.K. Osnitsky, V.A. Petrovsky) note that cognitive activity is then effective for human development when it is consolidated in his behavior. Not every activity can become established in behavior. Thus, reliance on rationality in education helps to consolidate the surrounding world in the student’s head at the model level. The fact is that classical rationality in knowledge silently allows for the transfer of knowledge from one head to another. It is assumed that the teacher and the student are involved in “the same goal of existence” and are in a one-dimensional space - in a word, they are in the space of a monoculture. It is these assumptions that allow the teacher to think that when he explains, the student immediately understands everything. However, according to M.K. Mamardashvili, in this case, a human-substrate is present and developing, at best “...endowed with constant abilities of cognition, universal throughout the entire sum and in any place in space.” In other words, in this case, the development of the sphere of human existence lags significantly behind the development of the subject sphere.

Meanwhile, relying on a phenomenological approach in teaching involves “inclusion” in the learning process of a person’s existential sphere, and not just the emotional one, which will contribute to the vision of new meanings of what is knowable and the deepening of a person’s spiritual activity.

The need to appeal to the phenomenological approach in education becomes obvious, also because the goals of education receive a new meaning. For example, such goals of education as the acquisition and development of a student’s self-image, his entry into the world around him, the world of culture, values, and his comprehension of the meaning of life, cannot be determined once and for all by a person. They change, are revised, and deepen throughout his life. Therefore, the main problem of human development is related to changing oneself. It consists of changing the trajectory of one’s path, “launching oneself along a different trajectory,” according to internal reasons. Hence, such goals in education as the awakening of spirituality and self-development, self-improvement throughout life today become more significant for students. And the phenomenological approach, which takes into account the existence of a person in the process of cognition, becomes decisive.

Meanwhile, we can talk not only about a phenomenological approach to cognitive activity, but also to education in general. Today, the concept of human dimension is the main requirement, the law, for the construction and development of the educational process. L.A. Stepashko notes that the concept of “human dimension” acts as “..“protection” of human nature in real conditions, as a regulatory one, suggesting that reform projects in the field of education be harmonized with the capabilities and characteristics of human nature.” After all, any project in the field of education “deals with a historically developing system, with the person and human activity included in it,” therefore the concept of “human dimension” is not only a criterion for the development of the pedagogical process or “natural essential forces” of a person, but also the basis for building interaction with students. This means that the phenomenological approach, which underlies interaction, acts as a measure of the development of the student’s thinking, the basis for the development of his

subjectivity and will be the approach that serves as the foundation for the implementation of the most important concept - the human dimension of education.

The central concept of this approach is the word “phenomenon”. Based on the works of E. Husserl, G. G. Shpet, C. Merleau-Ponty, M.K. Mamardashvili, we will try to highlight its psychological and pedagogical meaning. Thus, E. Husserl says that the true process of cognition occurs in the case “if we turn off all transcendences.” In other words, everything external can distract from true knowledge and prevent you from seeing the essence. By external we can understand not only the external image of an object (which is fixed in the mind, and therefore becomes an obstacle to its further understanding), but also the generally accepted understanding of something, adopted from another, and therefore is already emasculated knowledge, with limited meaning. M.K. Mamardashvili says that we need to block and neutralize visualizations in our reasoning, since they “...prevent us from seeing those dependencies and harmonies that cannot be visually comprehended and which are hidden by the clarity of our subject language.” In his opinion, it is necessary for a person’s attention to shift away from the usual content, “in the horizontal of which all points are occupied by mental formations - objects of the external world.” Hence the phenomenon is the formation of consciousness in which there are no universal connections with the outside world. This is not a representation of an object of reality and not a dream. This is a kind of closed integrity in which the object of reality “as it is” is expressed. M.K. Mamardashvili draws attention to the fact that the phenomenon of awareness manifests itself in the case of “involvement of the whole soul in any action in which a person’s purpose is expressed.” It arises in response to the realization in external conditions of the impression that expresses the state of a person. It follows that the phenomenological approach is rooted in the ontological principles on which all education is based: the law of natural conformity, the law of ideal conformity, the law of subjectivity.

Thus, the phenomenological approach is fundamentally different from previously existing ones. Its main feature is that it allows one to approach the student not as some given integrity, but as an individual who has his own history, can change, and has the internal strength to do so.

In order to show the possibilities of the phenomenological approach, let us analyze its distinctive features in comparison with ordinary intellectual (logical) thinking. By ordinary thinking we mean “classically rational thinking”, based on logical operations of analyzing objects of external reality - ready-made models. Meanwhile, our comparison will be conditional, since in a more general case, logical thinking is a special case of phenomenological thinking.

G. Husserl, analyzing the features of ordinary thinking, comes to the conclusion that it is extreme. Thus, ordinary logical thinking is characterized by a limited understanding of the essence of an object, for it “the unknown is the horizon of the known.” While in phenomenological thinking there is no limit, since it is addressed to the experience of the person himself. When we say experience, we mean the total experience of accumulated knowledge, experiences, relationships, and perceptions of a person. From this point of view, a person’s internal experience is limitless, and new knowledge, being integrated into the structure of experience, changes and enriches it. This leads to the following difference. Thus, with the usual method of thinking, a thing is presented one-sidedly; more precisely, we presuppose this one-sidedness, since we strive to attribute its essence to already known models. Phenomenological thinking is based on the diversity of perception of a thing, which forms, according to E. Husserl’s expression, a “lasting experience” in the human mind. Thus, the essence of the cognizable cannot, in principle, be considered given once and for all. Firstly, because a person is not equal to himself every time, and since knowledge is part of a person’s experience, the result of his awareness and understanding will be different. Secondly, the cognizable object itself is different each time, since its perception depends, among other things, on external conditions: lighting, location, smell, color, etc., which can cause different layers of awareness. This means that the cognizable object “nuances,” as E. Husserl puts it, a person’s own experiences, which deepens and expands the essence of the cognizable.

The next difference is related to the peculiarity of logical (ordinary) thinking. Thus, with ordinary thinking, the background field remains uninvolved: feelings and experiences are either not represented at all, or are presented separately and, at best, accompany reflections, but do not act as their source, as in phenomenological thinking. With phenomenological cognition, the background field seems to “appear”, which makes impressions relevant, enriches and develops reflexive activity.

Another difference is due to the fact that ordinary logical thinking is symbolic. In other words, a cognizable thing is a sign or stage for further cognition. M.K. reflects on this in his book. Mamardashvili. So, in this case it is tacitly assumed that

the subject, thinking, calculating all possible options in his mind, knows where he is going. But he can calculate only when both the cognizable object and he himself are in the same field of culture - monoculture. However, the world is diverse, and the main illusion is that we are surrounded by empty space. Meanwhile, phenomenological cognition is existential, in the sense that in this case both the sphere of human subjectivity is affected, and the possibility of the world being different than in the picture is constantly present, therefore a person is not just an author (the quality of subjectivity), but a researcher of the knowable.

Finally, phenomenological knowledge is essential, and thinking subject to classical rationalism stops at facts. However, its understanding does not follow from the fact, but understanding occurs if “the person himself is established as an event in the world,” and becomes involved in the world. This happens because, according to M.K. Mamardashvidi, a person does not think linearly, but each time “falls” into a thought anew, so that it appears as an event for him (the person), in which he is holistically affected. It is impossible to be involved in a model of the world, a ready-made (correct) image. In other words, phenomenological thinking is meaningful, that is, it allows a person to establish himself in the world, according to his experienced impressions, and therefore to change in knowledge, to be different from what he was before.

Thus, cognitive activity can be much richer than the simple use (analysis, synthesis) of previously obtained information for future knowledge. In cognition, first of all, experience is consolidated: the experience of experiences, the experience of reflection, the experience of searching.

Let us draw conclusions from the above. The phenomenological approach has a direct impact on the formation and development of human subjectivity, since it appeals to it.

There are significant differences between logical - linear thinking and phenomenological thinking. Their main difference lies in their approach to the Other, the surrounding world, which can be different, unique, and can change. E. Husserl notes that knowledge begins with experience and remains in experience. These words mean that cognition begins with experience; it means that as a result of experimental cognition (individual contemplation), a person forms an image of the object he sees and identifies its essential characteristics. In this sense, knowledge is accidental, since “...the object itself has originality in itself,” and as a result of “a single glance,” “one essence” is comprehended. In this case, the entire set of originalities, integrity, singularity of the object remains “behind the scenes”, remains unknown. Therefore, in order for cognition to be complete, it is necessary that it “remains in experience.” It is necessary that as a result of subsequent contemplations of the same object, other essential characteristics arise in a person’s consciousness - and then a complete picture gradually takes shape.

Finally, the phenomenological approach is human-dimensional, in the sense that it is consonant with the principles of conformity with nature, ideal conformity and subjectivity in human education, and also takes into account each time the trajectory of the choice of personality development.

In the article being shown features of phenomenological approach in the education. Today concept of human is the basis of mutual relations in the society. The phenomenological approach is necessary in the pedagogical process. It is taken into account emotional, volitional, subjective component in the cognitive activity of person. In the article being shown differences of logical and phenomenological thinking.

Key words: phenomenology, phenomenological approach, education, person, thinking.

Bibliography

1. Husserl E. Ideas of pure phenomenology / E. Husserl. M.: Academic Avenue, 2009.

2. Zvenigorodskaya G.P. On phenomenology and reflection in education /book for teachers: textbook. allowance /G.P. Zvenigorodskaya.Khabarovsk:, 2002.202p.

3. Mamardashvili M.K. Classical and non-classical ideals of rationality. St. Petersburg: Azbuka, 2010.288p.

4. Stepashko L.A. Philosophy of education: ontological, axiological, anthropological foundations: textbook. allowance / L.A. Stepashko. Vladivostok: DVGU, 2008.248 p.

5. Stepin V.S. Theoretical knowledge M.: “Progress-Tradition”, 2000. 744 p.

6. Shpet G.G. Phenomenon and meaning / G.G. Shpet.M.: Aquarius, 1996. 192p.

Korneenko T.N. - Candidate of Pedagogical Sciences, Far Eastern State Transport University, Department of Physics, Associate Professor, [email protected]

Perhaps, of all the individual qualitative approaches, the phenomenological one is closest to psychologists. In any case, it is in a phenomenological vein (or using the phenomenological method) that many modern qualitative studies in psychology are built.

The word "phenomenology" is often used in the psychology community. At the same time, it often incorrectly designates a fairly wide range of phenomena; it often includes everything that does not belong to “rigorous” science: descriptions that do not involve calculations, case studies that are not aimed at statistical generalizations, psychological reflections and interpretations in the essay genre, etc. . Meanwhile, the word “phenomenology” in a philosophical context usually denotes a special direction of research associated with the names of E. Husserl, M. Merleau-Ponty, M. Heidegger (in the latter case we are most often talking about “hermeneutic phenomenology”). The task of phenomenology is to identify and thoroughly describe phenomena. The clearest definition of a phenomenon was given by M. Heidegger: a phenomenon is something that shows itself. In order to “grasp” this self-showing being, a phenomenological method is developed - a unique type of experience, the core of which is phenomenological reduction, i.e. attempts to “bracket out” (another metaphor used: “to bracket”) everything that the natural attitude carries with it - any ordinary and scientific knowledge about the phenomenon, in order to successfully come into contact with entities. A researcher who practices phenomenological reduction temporarily renounces all judgment regarding experience (Husserl used the Greek word era, meaning abstention from presuppositional opinions), “brackets” one’s preliminary ideas about phenomena in order to achieve a clear vision of them.

The philosophical understanding of the phenomenon and the phenomenological method developed within the framework of philosophical phenomenology formed the basis of the phenomenological approach as a qualitative research strategy. However, it must be borne in mind that the phenomenological approach in qualitative psychological research and philosophical phenomenology are not the same thing. Moreover, not only philosophical phenomenology is the source of the phenomenological approach. It originated in the 70s. XX century in the wake of criticism of traditional scientistic psychology and represented an attempt to outline the contours of a research methodology that would overcome the shortcomings of the “rigorous science” model (arbitrariness of theoretical constructs, loss of connection with the living reality of experience, a break with the sphere of practice - not only psychological, but also with various forms life practices). The main center for the emergence and development of the approach was Duquesne University in the USA, where A. Giorgi united around himself a group of psychologists who began developing the principles of the phenomenological method (Ulanovsky, 2007). Philosophical phenomenology indeed formed the basis of an alternative research methodology to scientism, but in the context of the phenomenological approach in psychology, philosophical positions were significantly restructured in order to meet the tasks of empirical science.

Among the main characteristics of the phenomenological approach in qualitative research are the following:

• 1) the object of research is experiences, experiences, aspects of the life world in the form in which they directly manifest themselves to consciousness; for example, a phenomenologist may be interested in the structure of aesthetic experience, the core elements of the experience of disappointment or disillusionment, the experience of learning to play chess, aspects of the life world of people suffering from heart disease; for supporters of the approach it is very important to identify essential structure experiences or experiences, i.e. articulate those invariant themes that appear in experience from situation to situation and from one person to another;
• 2) research is descriptive in nature, it is aimed at comprehending subjective reality, direct experiences, experience in their maximum specificity and completeness, without the researcher turning to explanatory models and theoretical schemes;
• 3) an obligatory component is phenomenological reduction, which in the field of psychological empirical research takes the form of special reflective work of the researcher with the prerequisites of his own understanding.

The current phenomenological approach to qualitative research is heterogeneous. We can talk about at least two different variations of it - descriptive and interpretative (hermeneutic) phenomenology or the actual phenomenological and hermeneutic approaches (Busygina, 20096; 2010). These approaches, of course, have much in common, so they are often classified as one - phenomenological - approach. However, they are based on different philosophical foundations, so there may be some very noticeable differences in the research styles they presuppose.

The most famous version descriptive phenomenological approach was proposed by the American psychologist A. Giorgi (Giorgi, 1997; Giorgi, Giorgi, 2003; 2008). His "descriptive phenomenological psychological method" (Descriptive Phenomenological Psychological Method) is based on the philosophical ideas of E. Husserl. Georgie insists on the difference between description and interpretation: description, according to Georgie, presupposes a consistent explication of what is given with evidence and directly experienced, while interpretation always means going beyond the immediate given, placing the material in a broader context and seeing in it those connections that are not obvious. Typically, a descriptive phenomenological approach uses data obtained from oral interviews. Written texts are rarely used, due to the fact that written speech is polysemous and requires interpretative efforts for its understanding.

At the stage of data analysis, the descriptive phenomenological approach assumes that the researcher works only at the level obvious meanings, at the level self-understanding researched and reads from the text only what is said directly. A version of the descriptive phenomenological method by A. Giorgi uses the technique of sequential condensation of meaning, the essence of which is to break the text into semantic units and sequentially extract (condense) the meaning of each of them. Experts are often brought in to implement the technique. In the description of the condensed meaning, the researcher includes only those opinions of experts who have received intersubjective agreement. The description itself, for the purpose of validation, can be offered to respondents who confirm its accuracy or make amendments. After condensing the meanings of each significant statement, these meanings are collected into larger thematic clusters, and experts can also be involved here. The collected clusters are again given to individual respondents for validation, etc. The result of such a procedure is a description of the structure of the experience or experience being studied. As can be seen, descriptive phenomenological data analysis is a movement towards meaning through a structured process that involves constant reliance on data. The purpose of the analysis is an integrated description of the experience, independent of the theoretical, political or any other position of the researcher.

However, it must be noted that today two types of descriptive phenomenological studies are practiced - classical, or intuitive(classical, or intuitive), phenomenology and new, or empathic(new, or empathetic), phenomenology (Willis, 2004). Until now, we have mainly been talking about the first type - classical phenomenology; precisely its goal is to reveal the invariant structure of a particular experience, in other words, to answer the question of what this or that phenomenon is (“the feeling of being understood,” an aesthetic experience, the experience of violence, or something else). New empathic phenomenology tries to answer a different question, namely: how certain people experience a certain experience (understanding, perception of beauty, violence, etc.) If classical phenomenology, turning to subjective experience, tries to find a way through it to understand that What is a phenomenon, what is its essence, then empathic phenomenology openly and reflexively addresses the subjective meanings and meanings that the experiencers themselves put into their experience: what does caring for the dying mean for the hospice nurses themselves? What does living with a heart condition mean for the patients themselves? and so on. In a social sense, such studies are of great importance, since they demonstrate the diversity of people's life worlds and allow us to capture the experiences of those whose views, for some social reasons, differ from the views of representatives of the dominant groups in a given area. Emiagic phenomenology, as can be seen, comes from the idea of ​​the social heterogeneity of human consciousness and itself contributes to the development of such ideas. Thus, it is close to the critical mode of qualitative research, although it does not use the “revealing” interpretive techniques inherent in critical research itself. Finally, it should be said that in contrast to intuitive phenomenology, based on the philosophical ideas of E. Husserl, empathic takes a lot from the hermeneutic tradition; accordingly, on a scale whose poles are description, on the one hand, and interpretation, on the other, it will be, although at the pole of description, but will be somewhat shifted towards interpretation.

An approach interpretive (hermeneutic) phenomenology in qualitative research it is based on the ideas of philosophical hermeneutics - the ideas of V. Dilthey, M. Heidegger, H.-G. Gadamer, P. Ricoeur. Well-known versions of the interpretative phenomenological method in psychology were proposed by the Canadian M. van Manen (van Manen, 2002), the Swede G. Karlsson (Karlsson, 1993), and the Englishman J. Smith (Eatough, Smith, 2008; Smith, 2004).

Like the philosophical phenomenology of E. Husserl, hermeneutics is interested in revealing meanings. However, grasping meaning in hermeneutics has a different nature: understanding meaning is always accomplished in the process of interpretation. From the position of hermeneutic phenomenology, it can be argued that A. Giorgi, insisting on the difference between description and interpretation, does not take into account the fact that description is always associated with the problems of understanding, and understanding, in turn, has an interpretative nature.

One of the most important ideas of philosophical hermeneutics is the idea hermeneutic circle as an integral conditions of understanding. In the context of the works of M. Heidegger (2002) and H.-G. Gadamer (1988), the hermeneutic circle must be understood not only in a methodological sense (as a continuous movement of knowledge between the whole and parts of the text), but also in an ontological sense. As M. Heidegger writes, “any interpretation designed to provide intelligibility must already have an interpreted understood” (Heidegger, 2002, § 32, p. 152). In other words, understanding the meaning always presupposes the interpreter’s vital relationship to the text, his preliminary connection with what is communicated in it. This hermeneutical premise is called pre-understanding, since it is not achieved in the process of understanding, but is assumed to be already given in advance. The researcher enters the study with his own preconceptions and preconceptions. And its “self-destruction” (in the sense of complete purification of consciousness from any forms of prejudice) is not only unattainable, but would also entail the elimination of the very possibility of understanding. Another thing is that in the process of understanding the researcher must always be ready to question his own preconceptions by taking into account what the other person or the text is saying.

Based on this philosophical platform, the hermeneutic phenomenology approach as a qualitative research methodology is explicitly positioned by its proponents as interpretative: meanings are always born in the process of interaction between the reader and the text, and no matter how close the researcher is to the text that addresses it in its “truth”, the process of understanding will always resemble translation from one language to another, which inevitably includes re-illumination of the meaning, awareness by the interpreter separation from the text and the search for a compromise.

As in the case of descriptive phenomenology, proponents of the hermeneutic approach attach great importance to the reflection of the researcher. However, in accordance with the general hermeneutic position, preconceptions are not set aside, but are considered an essential part of the interpretative process, and are therefore “put into play” and “at stake” in such a way that they can always be changed in the light of the data of experience. The researcher tries, whenever possible, to explicate his position and track how it relates to the problem being studied. And therefore, the final report in interpretive research, as a rule, includes a description of the personal position of the researcher and the philosophical and theoretical foundations within which the research was conducted.

The methodology for hermeneutic data analysis is much less defined than for descriptive phenomenological research. Proponents of the interpretive phenomenological method note that hermeneutics invites participants into an ongoing conversation, but does not offer a clear algorithm for the method. Understanding is achieved through the fusion of horizons, which is nothing more than a dialectical movement between pre-understanding, interpretive framework and sources of information. It is impossible to form a finite set of procedures that structure the interpretive process, since interpretation is born from pre-understanding and dialectical movement between the whole and parts of the text. The interpretive process continues until a tangible meaning is reached that answers the research question, is consistent with the theoretical and value position of the researcher, and is certainly supported by the data. How exactly this interpretation arose is a key question, the answer to which the interpreter must present to the reader so that the latter can evaluate the advantages and disadvantages of the interpretation. Like descriptive phenomenology, interpretative phenomenological analysis does not imply an explanation of phenomena, and its result is also a rich, rich description of the subjective experience, experiences, and features of the life world of the interlocutors. However, the path that the researcher takes to present such a description is different: step-by-step analysis is practically not used, the material is not divided into semantic units, but is interpreted as a whole, while the researcher moves within the hermeneutic circle and takes into account the entire richness of contexts. And if descriptive phenomenological research tends towards unambiguous description, then the hermeneutic approach assumes much greater freedom of interpretation.